8The Daily Tar Heel Monday, November 18, 1935
CUtff flail
nm
ar
93rd year of editorial freedom
Arne Rickert and David Schmidt
Editor Editor
Catherine Cowan
Anjetta McQueen
Janet Olson
Jami White
AndyTrinqa
Associate Editor
Production Editor
University Editor
Newt Editor
State and Nationsl Editor
Loretta Grantham
Lorry Williams
Lee Roberts
Elizabeth Ellen
Sharon Sheridan
City Editor
Business Editor
Sports Editor
Arts Editor
Features Editor
Larry Childress Photography Editor
To the dth degree
A policy living in infancy
It's unfortunate and upsetting when it
happens, but sometimes you don't know
an experiment wont work until it
explodes in your face. It hurts, and
sometimes it hurts others just as much.
Last Wednesday, it happened to The
Daily Tar Heel.
The editorial was called "Zionism lives
in infamy." Though it has angered many
people, I am not writing to explain the
opinion it expressed, nor am I apologizing
for it. Only the author has that right.
And that's the point, I guess. It was
an individual's editorial. Signed editorials
under our new format do not reflect the
opinion of the paper, and neither do they
try to present the viewpoint of the student
body as a whole. If that was anybody's
perception, it was mistaken.
But the fact that we left ourselves open
to such an interpretation is our respon
sibility, and our mistake. For that, I do
want to apologize, and I want to explain.
The only views endorsed by "the paper"
meaning the majority of a group
including the co-editors, associate editor
and editorialists appear as the "board
opinion," introduced two weeks ago at
the top of the column. Each board
member contributes to their content and
or writes them. They're unsigned because
we all stand behind them, not because
the writers want to remain anonymous.
But editorialists need an outlet for
personal opinions that others might not
agree with. If that's the case, critics have
argued, then let them write columns on
the right side of the back page instead
of editorials.
I disagree. Because of their commit
ment to the paper and Arne's and my
faith in their abilities, we feel that our
editorialists deserve a privileged position
on the back page to express their views.
In the sense that they reflect only the
opinion of the author, they are columns.
But in the sense that Arne and I sanction
their being presented (a power that we
don't exercise over columns, because that
part of the page is open, and we print
what we get as space permits), they are
editorials.
We may even sanction editorials that
strike many readers as ill-reasoned, ill
researched or unfounded. That's the risk
taken by anybody who expresses an
opinion. Of course, because of their status
on the page, we want those in the left
column to be solid. Maybe some still will
have faults. Nevertheless, they have a
right to be heard.
We learn by exchanging viewpoints.
We also learn by mistakes.
Editorial board background
One caller about the Zionism piece also
was concerned that whereas columns
provided background about the author,
no one knew about the edit writers. Here
is the information.
Arne Rickert, co-editor, a senior
English major from Topeka, Kan.
Catherine Cowan, associate editor in
charge of the back page, a junior English
and classics major from Fayetteville, Ark.
Louis Corrigan, editorial writer, a
junior English major from Atlanta.
Sally Pont, editorial writer, a senior
English major from Northford, Conn.
James Toner, editorial writer, a senior
English and Latin major from Westmont.
111.
And me, a senior journalism and
English major from Hockessin, Del.
I can foresee a number of readers
questioning the major similarity among
us. If you ask me, though, the English
discipline teaches one to write clearly
and to write clearly, one first must learn
to think clearly. Aside from related areas
of composition, such as journalism, I
don't think any other field can offer a
better general training for someone who
wants to write editorials.
An editorial's role
The recent editorial also raised a
challenge that we've faced before: the
belief that DTH editorials should repres
ent the views of the student body. Not
only do they influence the way readers
outside the community perceive the
campus, it has been said, but the DTH
like other papers also must be
answerable to its owners, the students.
Though forced to pay for the paper,
students, I believe, are subscribers of the
newspapers and not shareholders or
owners. On-campus residents must buy
a meal plan, but that doesnt give them
rights over ARA Services. Sometimes a
subsidy is justified. The DTHs has been
upheld by federal court rulings.
But how do we justify this, in light of
our editorials attacking the meal plan last
semester?
We questioned, and only briefly, the
need for a meal plan; we did not judge
its necessity. Our editorials focused on
the lack of student input during the
decision to implement the meal plan. But
in the case of constitutional funding for
the DTH, students had a direct voice
through a campuswide vote in giving
the paper a set percentage of their activity
fees. Students have the right to petition
to revoke such funding, too, as we
witnessed earlier this semester.
The consequences of an editorial policy
that sought to reflect the tenor of its
constituency would be a mess. Even if
there were a way to gauge a campus
consensus for every stance, especially on
controversial issues, using an editorial to
present a point of view that most readers
already held would be pointless.
I believe there is one thing above all
else that an editorial must answer to, and
that's the writer's conscience. To base it
on anything else, or to subject it in every
instance to a majority board opinion, is
to relinquish our right to have minds of
our own.
DAVE SCHMIDT
The Daily Tar Heel
Editorial Writers: Louis Corrigan, Sally Pont and James Toner
Design: Julie Braswell, Randy Farmer, Donna Leinwand, Stuart Tonkinson and Laura
Zeligman
News: Jenny Albright, Lisa Allen, Crystal Baity, Thomas Beam, Lisa Brantley, Loch Carnes
Helene Cooper, Kerstin Coyle, Vicki Daughtry, Randy Farmer, Charles Fernandez, Jo Fleischer,'
Jill Gerber, Todd Gossett, Wayne Grimsley, Mike Gunzenhauser, Kenneth Harris, Elizabeth
Holler, Denise Johnson, Robert Keefe, Laura Lance, Scott Larsen, Alicia Lassiter, Donna
Leinwand, Mitra Lotfi, Dora McAlpin, Yvette Denise Moultrie, Linda Montanari, Kathy
Nanney, Beth Ownley, Rachel Orr, Grant Parsons, Gordon Rankin, Kelli Slaughter, Rachel
Stiffler, Rachel Stroud, Jennifer Trotter, Elisa Turner, Kim Weaver, Laurie Willis, Bruce Wood,
Katherine Wood and Karen Youngblood. Guy Lucas, assistant University editor, Rhesa Versola'
assistant business editor. . -t .
Sports: Scott Fowler and Tim Crothers, assistant sports editors. Mike Berardino, Greg Cook
Phyllis Fair, Paris Goodnight! Tom Morris, James Suroweicki, Buffie Velliquette and Bob
Young.
Features: Marymelda Hall, assistant features editor. Kara V. Donaldson, Matthew Fury, Jane
Mintz, Mary Mulvihill, Tara Reinhart, Laurie Rodgers, Liz Saylor, Denise Smitherman and
Martha Wallace.
Arts: Mark Davis, Aniket Majumdar, Alexandra Mann, Alan Mason, Sally Pont, Deanna
Ruddock, Garret Weyr and Ian Williams.
Photography: Charlotte Cannon, Dan Charlson, Jamie Cobb, Janet Jarman and Charles
Ledford. '
Copy Editors: Lisa Fratturo, Bryan Gates, Tracey Hill, Gina Little, Cindy Parker, Grant Parsons
and Kelli Slaughter.
Artists: Adam Cohen, Bill Cokas and David Sumner.
Business and Advertising: Anne Fulcher, general manager; Paula Brewer, advertising director;
Angela Booze, student business manager; Angela Ostwalt, accounts receivable clerk; Doug
Robinson, student advertising manager; Alicia Brady, Keith Childers, Alicia Susan D'Anna,
Staci Ferguson, Kellie McElhaney, Melanie Parlier, Stacey Ramirez and Scott Whitaker,
advertising representatives; Staci Ferguson and Kelly Johnson, classified assistants; Johnnie
Parker, advertising coordinator. David Leff, office manager and Cathy Davis, secretary.
Distributioncirculation: William Austin, manager; Tucker Stevens, circulation assistant.
Production: Brenda Moore and Stacy Wynn. Rita Galloway and Rose Lee, production assistants.
Printing: Hinton Press Inc. of Mebane
READER FORUM
Human rights: Tor the love of people'
TV tVi Asii j-tp m '
To the editors
Originally titled to encompass a
week of Campus Y programs,
Human Rights Week in its third
year not only seeks to bring to the
forefront human rights issues but
also human concerns. Specifically,
this years program addresses four
areas: health, individual and group
rights, international topics, and
freedom of expression. Having
themes each day strangles any
incongruency of purpose and gives
each day a completeness.
The problem with planning a
week that specifically addresses
human rights is trying to determine
what "human rights" are. Defining
them would be easier if there were
an alien force that somehow sup
pressed humanity. Humanity could
then quickly identify its rights.
What are human rights? My
definition of human rights is based
on the Golden Rule: Do unto others
as you would have others do unto
you. It's an antiquated thought that
at one time I found inscribed on
wooden rulers, but not anvmore
Failure to practice the Golden Rule
is a violation of another's human
rights.
A person should be allowed to
stay healthy enough in his environ
ment, to be his own person (and
if that includes membership into a
group, so be it), to exist in the world
around him peaceably, and to
communicate his existence openly,
without threat, to all. Those are the
rights of humans. Of course defi
nitions vary among those who are
well fed, housed and employed.
One professor who heared this
definition found it "too narrow." He
said, "Human rights is simply the
right to life the right to live." .
His definition of having the right
to life relates to today's theme,
"Health in Human Rights" and
directly highlights the evening
program, "Pro-life or Pro-choice,"
a debate between the UNC College
Republicans and the Campus Y's
Women's Forum Committee. The
program will feature two films, "The
Silent Scream," and "Planned
Parenthood's Response to Silent
Scream," as well as Professor
Gregory Trianosky of the UNC
Philosophy department, who will
moderate discussion.
"Health in Human Rights" does
acknowledge the right to life with
programs like abortion, teen sui
cide, and euthanasia. Abortion,
which conflicts with the freedom of
the mother and the unborn child,
and suicide and euthanasia (when
an individual has willed in certain
situations that his life be terminated)
which conflicts with personal free
doms, all test our values of human
ity and our reasons for existence.
Equally important, "Health in
Human Rights" acknowledges
hunmn ronrciw Is our right to qtav
healthy affected by the arms race'
or by high medical costs, and is this
a human rights issue? What are the
effects of child abuse, the Vietnam
War and AIDS on society? We
highlight these topics during the day
as well.
In sum, it would be unrealistic
to expect the same activity of protest
and defiance as the '60's after the
completion of the week. Our goal
is not to revert, convert, or divert
anyone's attention from living.
However, we want people to open
themselves to the horrors many face
and to help others who are less
fortunate to live better. "For the
love of people," the theme for the
entire week, let's celebrate
humanity.
Addison Sweeney
David Schnbrrenberg
Campus Y Human Rights Week
Committee
ARMWPENOmCES
TERRORISM
Cf I A? f
w VrtcrnrK
f SANTA CIAUS AT
fervent
JWBD 37(7
r t
TTfcBhagwsi
1 - .
- ' rfVM
The Y is hurting Steele
To the editors:
The Campus Y is a wonderful
institution, with a remarkable
record of accomplishment for
freedom and social justice. It has
been aptly called the "conscience
of the University."
. The spirit of the Y lives in the
hearts and minds of the students.
It is their idealism, their energy,
their dedication, that has done
these things. They are wonderful
young men and women, and I
love them.
That is why the present con
troversy is so distressing. It is
difficult for me, as a newly
elected member of the Y Advi
sory Board, to understand why
those who are in a position to
do something about this problem
won't do something about it.
cant they see that the students
are hurting about this? Thev are
bewildered and frustruated by
the way in which their interests
have been ignored, their appeals
have been rejected.
I think it is clear that a mistake
has been made, ' an error of
judgement. It is an honest mis
take, an action taken with the
best of intentions. But if this
mistake is not corrected, to the
satisfaction of the students
who have certainly been moder
ate and reasonable in their
appeals the spirit of the Y will
be quenched.
Please wont those who are
in a position to do something
about it, do something about it?
Art Coulter Jr., M.D.
Professor of Surgery and Bio
medical Engineering
'DTH' editorial: tangled speech and twisted lode
TT& mIhhu f, h;. u . "sarUy 1 have trouble taking seriously which are sometimes JeLv
The Middle Eastern disDute is a
touchy situation at best. Aside from
arousing strong political feelings,
the Middle Eastern controversy is
also tied in with religion, two
subjects that are intrinsically linked
to one's emotions. Suffice to say
that there will never be a consensus
on who is right and who is wrong.
However, when somebody employs
the tangled speech and twisted logic
which Sally Pont does in her
editorial of November 13, it further
complicates an already complex
situation.
Miss Pont should realize that
many people are sympathetic
towards the goal of Zionism, and
furthermore, that while some fac
tions of the Israeli government do
favor strong military action, they
are a minority. Miss Pont would do
well to recognize that the actions
of a few cannot serve to condemn
the larger body. Just as the strong
military philosophy of some Israeli
politicians does not represent all
Israelis, the actions of the Jewish
Defense League do not necessarily
represent all Jews, and for that
matter, the Palestine Liberation
represent all Palestinians
Miss Pont seems to feel that the
PLO is a moderate organization,
rationally seeking a solution, but she
shoots down her own argument by
citing the atrocities committed by
the PLO at the 1972 Olympic
Games in Munich. Since the
avowed purpose of the PLO is the
annihilation of Israel, I fail to see
why Israel is under any compunc
tion to negotiate with them.
anyone who is so clearly biased, but
uniortunately, Miss Pont and peo
ple who share her viewpoint need
to be taken with the utmost serious
ness. She seems to feel that the
PLO's terrorist actions, perpetrated
in the name of "sheer desperation,"
are entirely justified, while Israeli
military actions against the PLO are
"ethically unsound."
Miss Pont, Zionists are not
"maniacal" and the military actions
sometimes necessarv are
not the "blind irrationalities of
prejudice" but are acts designed to
insure the survival of the Jewish
people. I don't doubt that you
would dispute that a strong defense
is necessary for the survival of a
nation, but you are probably one
of those people that think the
Holocaust never happened, and that
all Jews are simply paranoid.
Eric Greenwald
Carrboro
Controversy at expense of accuracy
To the editors:
Sally Pont's editorial ("Zionism
'lives in Infamy," Nov. 13) demon
strates the shameful willingness of
the DTH to generate controversy
at the expense of factual accuracy
and logical soundness.
The mere form of Ms. Pont's
assertions that Zionism is "entirely
militaristic and imperialistic," and
that the "present plight of the
Palestinians is indicative of Israel's
insatiable desire to conquer and
divide," should give notice that the
author was motivated more out of
prejudice than considered
judgement.
In fact, the origins of Zionism
were unequivocally defensive, as its
present-day proponents still adam
antly maintain it is. Certainly
"imperialism" and "legitimate self
defense" are two sides of the same
polemical coin. Perhaps they are
both best discarded for a more
sensitive consideration of the facts.
As a first step, the plight of the
Palestinians can be viewed as a
creation of the Arab nations which
turn their backs on their brothers
to frustrate their claim to a home
land. By so doing, the Arab nations
Secure the benefits of having forced
a burden of attrition upon Israel
that bleeds the country's economic
and manpower resources and sours
the good will of the world.
I think it is unfortunate that Ms.
Pont and the DTH have been
manipulated into furthering this ill
will.
Lance G. Isen
School of Law
iuiu uicu uauus on uieir oromers School of La
Zionism is not and never has been racism, Sally
To the editors: Ethinnian w ; u - . '. . .
In Sally Pont's editorial of
November 13, she reiterates and
defends a vicious defamatory inter-
pcwuuu oi zaonism. io set tne
record straight, Zionism is the
political movement to establish. a
homeland for the Jewish people in
Israel. It is named Zionism for the
Jews desire to return to Mt. Zion
in Jerusalem. Zionism is not, and
never was, racism.
The Jews are a people, not a race.
There are Oriental Jews, Indian
Jews, Caucasion Jews, and Black
Jews. Zionism is not racist. Just last
spring, Zionist movements raised
money and the Israeli government
risked the censure of its neighbors
Ethiopian Jews in "ODeratinn
Moses." These are black Jews that
they brought to Israel. Is that
racism? Israel is the only democracy
in the Middle East.
Pont blames Israel for the sys
tematic dispersion of Palestinian
Arabs. She should check her facts.
In 1948 the fledgling government of
Israel pleaded with the Palestinian
Arabs to stay and help build the
new nation. It was the Arab nation
who urged them to flee. The Pales
tinian refugees between the PLO
and Israel has brought too much
death and tragedy to both sides.
Pont's one sided condemnation of ,
Israel attempts to sanctify the
murders by PLO terrorists of
innocent tourists, school children
and bystanders. Is the slaughter by
the PLO of a wheelchair bound
American Jew, Leon Klinghoffer,
going to advance peace in the
Middle East? Arafat has never
renounced terrorism.
There is plenty of violence and
blame on all sides of this conflict.
However, Israel does have the right
to self-defense. It was passive
acquiescence to terror that led Jews
to the gas chambers of the Holo
caust. Israel represents a new,
fearsome image to many: strong
Jews who will fight back.
Pont's linkage between the Jewish
i-'ticuac icaKue ana Zionism i
false. The J.D.L. is a trulv bicoted.
fanatic, Anti Arab organization.
It no more represents Zionism than
the Ku Klux Klan represents
Democracy.
Let us bury the slurs and slanders
against Zionism. As a recent hemis
pheric conference of Catholics and
Jews did just last week, let us
renounce the charge of racism, and
focus on building a true, just, and
lasting peace in the Middle East.
Seth R. Reice
Associate Professor
Department of Biology
American Professors for Peace in
the Middle East
Geneva: An important day for humanity
By JOHN GIBBS
With the summit conference in Geneva less
than a month away, chances appear slim that
any major settlement can be reached. President
Reagan is doing well in the opinion polls at the
moment, and is secure in the knowledge that
most Americans have no great expectations for
the conference. Gorbachev meanwhile, is free
from any public opinion pressures, and seems
content in simply trying to score a propaganda
victory. Against this gloomy backdrop will be
played out the drama at the summit in
Switzerland.
Certainly writing off the meeting as a failure
even before it begins would be a mistake. As
long as the two leaders are able to get together
and discuss the issues, then there is always hope.
Yet both sides appear miles apart in their goals
for the conference. The Soviets are motivated
primarily by a desire to put a stop to the
development of the Strategic Defense Initiative
or "Star Wars" program. This outrageously
complex project would cost trillions of dollars,
be ineffective against cruise missiles, be almost
impossible to test fully, and not be operational
until at least the next century. This does not
even mention the fact that there is almost no
chance that it will ever work like its proponents
envision. Nonetheless, Reagan is captivated by
the promise of a nuclear umbrella in space. Thus
our most valuable bargaining chip will not be
up for negotiations in Geneva. With "Star Wars"
removed from the agenda, the summit could
quickly break down into a public shoutine match.
or the Soviets could simply walk out as they
did at the last meeting. A conference in which
nothing is achieved would not be
incomprehensible.
In fact the mood of the. two superpowers may
augur such an outcome. The Soviets, despite
recent overtures by Gorbachev, continue to
prepare for the military confrontation with
America which they consider tp be all but
inevitable. Here in the United States, there is
a continuing emphasis on defense spending in
order to close the so-called "window of vulner
ability" left by the Carter administration. This
despite the fact that the United States was just
as capable of destroying the world then as it
is now.
Obviously the. summit is not taking place at
the most propitious moment. Neither super
power appears particularly interested in arms
control, and since that is the issue to be discussed
in Geneva, the outlook is bleak. This should be
a cause of concern for the entire world. Ours
is a small planet which has been made even
smaller by the fact that we now possess
destructive forces capable of ending life on Earth
as we know it. The summit in Geneva therefore,
involves all of us. It places in jeopardy everything
in life that is meaningful and important. These
are the real bargaining chips to be haggled over.
At stake are all the wonders of this vibrant,
nurturing planet; the many centuries of human
achievement, the perfect balance of unspoiled
nature, the art, the literature, the architecture,
and ironically, the expansive knowledge of man
which has culminated in such perfect killing
devices that we have now reached a point of
mutually assured destruction if a nuclear war
is ever allowed to happen.
Unfortunately for all of us, man has never
proven capable of avoiding war. Despite the
tremendous advances made by the human race,
we have failed to outgrow the primeval urge for
combat. That the Soviet Union and the United
States have avoided open conflict in the forty
years since World War II is heartening. Yet we
have played around the fringes of war for too
long. We can only weather so many Cuban
Missile Crises.
That is why the Geneva summit is so
important. It is at least a chance to begin the
slow process of developing an understanding
between two vastly different nations. Chances
such as these do not come along that often. And
with each failure we move one step closer to
Armegeddon. The negotiators in Geneva may
realize this fact, yet more than likely they are
limited by their narrow aims and goals.
Nonetheless, without overstating the significance
of the summit, it must be noted that in trying
to bring some sanity to the suicidal chaos of
the arms race, the negotiators in Geneva are in
effect, trying to preserve life on the only planet
in the vastness of the universe known to support
it. If the Geneva meeting fails, then we are all
the poorer for it. And buried beneath all the
post-conference talk of the tactical gains and
propaganda victories will be a much greater loss.
John Gibbs is a junior history major from
Lynchburg, Va.